DCIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA vs. KUMAR ARUNODAYA, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

section; as enumerated in the show cause notice reproduced above to which the assessee failed to provide any satisfactory reply/explanation. 9. Therefore, the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s 54EC and 54F are hereby disallowed. It is not out of place to bring it on record that the assessee was liable to declare Long Term Capital Gains

ACIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA vs. KUMAR ARUNODAYA, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

section; as enumerated in the show cause notice reproduced above to which the assessee failed to provide any satisfactory reply/explanation. 9. Therefore, the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s 54EC and 54F are hereby disallowed. It is not out of place to bring it on record that the assessee was liable to declare Long Term Capital Gains

KUMAR ARUNODAYA,PATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 6, PATNA [NEW – DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, PATNA], PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

section; as enumerated in the show cause notice reproduced above to which the assessee failed to provide any satisfactory reply/explanation. 9. Therefore, the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s 54EC and 54F are hereby disallowed. It is not out of place to bring it on record that the assessee was liable to declare Long Term Capital Gains

KUMAR ARUNOSAYA,PATNA vs. A.O., CIRCLE-6, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

section; as enumerated in the show cause notice reproduced above to which the assessee failed to provide any satisfactory reply/explanation. 9. Therefore, the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s 54EC and 54F are hereby disallowed. It is not out of place to bring it on record that the assessee was liable to declare Long Term Capital Gains

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. KUMAR ARUNODAYA, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

section; as enumerated in the show cause notice reproduced above to which the assessee failed to provide any satisfactory reply/explanation. 9. Therefore, the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s 54EC and 54F are hereby disallowed. It is not out of place to bring it on record that the assessee was liable to declare Long Term Capital Gains

HARI NARAYAN GUPTA (HUF),PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6 (5), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain arose from it. Relying on various High Court and Apex Court decisions, the Tribunal found no merit in the AO's addition.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": ["Section 2(47)(v)", "Section 45", "Section 48", "Section 50C", "Section 53A", "Section 54F

HARIHAR PRASAD,PATNA vs. ITO WARD 4 (4), PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 54F of the Act was not allowed. The entire amount of sale consideration of ₹2,41,50,000/- was added as capital gains

VISHWAMBHAR CHAUDHARI,KATIHAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), KATIHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

capital gains tax under Section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The tribunal felt that substantive justice required remanding the case back to the CIT(A).", "result": "Allowed", "sections": ["250", "10(37)", "54F

VINOD YADAV,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6 (3), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

Section 54F of the Income Tax Act has been\ndecided by the Tribunal after considering the relevant fact that the assessing officer had\nalso charged capital gain

SEEMA SRIVASTAVA,PATNA vs. ITO,DC/AC-6, PATNA, PATNA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 54F. The assessee submitted before the AO that the mistake was inadvertent. However, details of sale of land where the capital gain

AJAY KUMAR,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6 (3), PATNA, PATNA

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

54F of the IT Act, 1961 from deemed Long Term Capital Gains. I.T.A. No.: 392/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ajay Kumar. 9. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case the Assessing Officer has failed to consider that the said Deemed Long Term Capital Gains and also the provisions of section

BAIJU ROY,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-4(2), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

sections and on the basis of report received from the Land Acquisition Officer and Circle Officer, the land in question is taxable u/s 45(5) of the Income-tax Act,1961 as Capital Gain. However, the assessee claimed deduction u/s 54B of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- on account of purchase of agriculture land and Rs.25,05,763/-/-u/s 54F

KRIPA SHANKER,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1), PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

capital gains was chargeable as per the provisions of section 54F of the Act. As regards the delay in filing

DIPAK KUMAR SINGH & SONS HUF,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(2), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee claimed that the delay was on account of ignorance of law and the assessee was alerted for filing the appeal only when they received a notice proposing levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) has discussed the issue of delayed filing with the help of several authorities on the subject and has declined to condone the said delay due to which the appeal was dismissed. 3.1 Further aggrieved with the action of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is

capital gains solely on the basis of the development agreement without taking notice of the fact that an area of 1668.75 square feet was allotted comprising two 2 I.T.A. No. 324/Pat/2018 Amit Kumar Singh small flats on the same floor comprising of a single residential unit only which also qualified for exemption under Section 54F

PANCHAM PAL,PATNA vs. I.T.O, WARD- 6 (4), PATNA

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 147 in the case of the appellant without appreciating that no income has escaped assessment. 14. For that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in not considering the fact that invocation of proceedings u/s 147/148 is ab initio void and without jurisdiction. 15. For that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming

SUNIL KUMAR SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6 (1), PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the sale of immovable properties on which long term capital gain was derived.

capital gain. 9. For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in upholding addition of Rs.2,05,609/-being the difference between cost of acquisition of the property as per Rol amounting to Rs. 14.42 lakhs vis-a-vis Rs. 12,36,730/- without appreciating the fact that the claim of Rs.12.36 lakhs as per circle rate of F.Y.2001-02

ACIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA vs. SH. SURESH , PATNA

54F on the gain of transfer of lands as arose to the assesse. (ii) Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding Rupam Tower as Residential House and has erred in allowing deduction u/s 54 to the LTCG arising to the assessee. (iii) Ld. CIT(A) erred in accepting the claim of the assessee regarding the cost of construction of the Rupam

AMRENDRA PRATAP SINGH,VARANASI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 3(1), GAYA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

capital gain under the Act. 11. For that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as the ld. assessing officer has erred in holding that the interest aggregating to Rs.1,77,580, being Rs.99,913 credited in ICICI Bank and Rs.77,667 credited in Canara Bank, during the Previous Year 2011-12 corresponding to the Assessment Year